Gunco Forums banner

Women in combat

2K views 16 replies 12 participants last post by  Big Don 
#1 ·
First, thank you for your service.

I have not served and am curious about what your opinions are about Panetta's announcement today. I have heard from more than one female soldier today ( one a marine sergeant on a female engagement team that just returned from ashcanistan) saying women should not be in combat roles with men because men will value the women over the mission and instinctively try to protect because that's what we are hard-wired to do.

I dont know because i have never been there. What say you who have? Truth? Bull? What about gender-segregated teams? I honestly dont know but would like to hear your opinions. From the outside looking in, i say prolly not a great idear, and the concept is simply HR PC diversity politicking.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.
 
#2 ·
Well first of all... I'm a Marine meaning I am in the business of following orders. With that being said, if they say I have to fight next to a woman there is nothing I can do about it as I do not make policy I just enforce it as a leader of Marines.

My only thought on this subject is this... The Marine Corps has been effective in completing the mission for 237 years. Is implementing this policy going to aid us in completing the mission better? If not and the only reason for this is to make a small percent (about 13% of the USMC is women) feel better then they are doing this for the wrong reasons.

Any woman Marine who says it is for promotion opportunities should know better because they already know combat has a miniscule impact on promotions. So if this is for bragging rights or just to make a person "Feel" like something then all it is, is a feel good policy which it is a bad decision. This is the difference between someone making it home to their family and not a social experiment.

The last thing I am going to say about it as a combat vet of both Iraq and Afghanistan to the women who are pushing for this is... Be very careful what you wish for. There is nothing glorious about combat. Knowing somone is trying to shoot you to end your life is not a fun feeling or something that makes you more proud to be you. Our responsibility is to defend the nation and, at times, take lives... This is not to make you feel like one of the boys.
 
#6 ·
Well first of all... I'm a Marine meaning I am in the business of following orders. With that being said, if they say I have to fight next to a woman there is nothing I can do about it as I do not make policy I just enforce it as a leader of Marines.

My only thought on this subject is this... The Marine Corps has been effective in completing the mission for 237 years. Is implementing this policy going to aid us in completing the mission better? If not and the only reason for this is to make a small percent (about 13% of the USMC is women) feel better then they are doing this for the wrong reasons.

Any woman Marine who says it is for promotion opportunities should know better because they already know combat has a miniscule impact on promotions. So if this is for bragging rights or just to make a person "Feel" like something then all it is, is a feel good policy which it is a bad decision. This is the difference between someone making it home to their family and not a social experiment.

The last thing I am going to say about it as a combat vet of both Iraq and Afghanistan to the women who are pushing for this is... Be very careful what you wish for. There is nothing glorious about combat. Knowing somone is trying to shoot you to end your life is not a fun feeling or something that makes you more proud to be you. Our responsibility is to defend the nation and, at times, take lives... This is not to make you feel like one of the boys.
does that first paragraph also mean you would shoot civilians if ordered to do so!!!!!


The Iraeli army has had women in the front lines for years, the soviets in WW2 had women in the front lines

my only concern would be if I had a daughte old enough to get drafted? should they re-institute the draft
 
#4 ·
My first thoughts as an outsider myself, is that the media is allready anti war/ military. When these young ladies start coming home in bags, it will be like pouring gas on the fire.
Or taken hostage & raped by the camel jockies on live al - jazeera . You know....al Gores network buddies....Come to think of it.....sounds like it will play just fine with Obamas hatred for the military.
Don't suppose he put a bug in Panettas ear on his way out????
 
#5 ·
America withdrew from Somalia when images of mutilated men stripped of their clothing were dragged through the streets... No imagine that was a single mother of 2...
 
#10 ·
girls have been in combat for some time with the currently open rear areas and fluid battlefields. so far they have done OK.

best i can tell even with the famous GI whitewash there hasn't been any glaring failures just because of their sex.

i can see integrated units having some problems though.

30 years ago i would have had a problem with it, today not so much. i figure some will be good enough. then again not all men can cut it either. i don't think they will be as generally good as men but their going to better than a empty position. i am sure some of the girls will be very good.

i do wonder what is going to happen when large numbers of them don't come home in one piece?

hell i bet 4th tries to re-up if the swamp girls sing up! LOL!


many have mentioned the IDF . they have been effective with gays and females , then again their so short they have to use every trick in the book. one former IDF boot told me they take the gays not to be PC but because being gay was a good way to get out of the draft--taking gays fills a lot of holes in the line.

LOL--

in our case it is PC and a bit of necessity --they just ain't jumping to join the armed forces these days. they can now stick girls in some of these open hot spots.
 
#12 ·
In general I think it's a bad thing, but having said that, IF the women can perform physically and emotionally as well as a man, then go for it.

I don't think it will be as romantic as GI Jane, but the one thing mentioned in that movie was that even if the woman can perform perfect, the men are still going to naturally make poor decisions to "protect" the women soldiers, as compared to male soldiers.
 
#13 ·
Fourty some years ago when I got out of the service People were talking about women in combat rolls.
One time at a restaurant four middle aged women debated the pro's of this adnausium until I couldn't take it any more so I interupted and asked "Do any of you think that women can be in combat, in the dirt and mud, with no shower, for week at a time, and not come down with an infection of some sort?"
The discussion ended abruptly and I was able to finish my lunch.
I was told by the waitress afterwards that two of the women were a rape crisis couselors, one was a lawyer. None of them had thought of some basic facts in there fight for women's rights, such as hygein.

BUT! In modern times I'm sure the troops are afforded the opportunity to shower more than twice a month and my arguement no longer has merit. But I must contend that the natural tendancy for males to protect females would be a real threat to both genders. Add to this the fact that most of the individuals who enlist to serve in the US military are the "protecting type"'personality. Much like those that want to become doctors, nurses, and law enforcement.
Dispite what some people believe, not everyone joins up to be a dick.
So I see mixed combat troops as an obstacle for troop safety.

I personaly would not have a problem taking orders from a female Lt. or Cptn. in the field. I would be trying to protect my male commander just the same as a female commander.



...
Glad I don't have to make a policy descision on this one.


I suppose that some might feel justified in saying that we as a people can not be truely free and equal until women can serve in combat without restriction.
I caution for the use of common sense regarding this.

With the crew we have running things nowadays I hope the policy makers have at least one foot in reality and not anebreated by extreme liberalization training.
I'm gonna stop now, before I truely piss someone off. I want to say more but I better not.
 
#14 ·
More lame leftist PC crap !!!
The military has been subjected to such social experiments for the past four decades. Combined with today's play for pay mentality the military arm of this nation ever more closely resembles that of ancient Rome. The costs of such bankrupted the Romans when they exhaused the places to loot and the former hostiles moved in to live the good life.

Yes, the Soviets in WW-II employed female combat troops as snipers, fighter pilots, etc. That was done out of shear desperation. When the war ended so did that policy.

VD in AZ
 
#16 ·
my guess this is more "smoke screen" make a controversy to take up air time and gab time --while he sneaks in a few boners on us tax payers.

naw the big "O" don't give a damn about americans or the "boots" the girls in combat to him are just to divert attention from his other fuck-ups and get some brownie/leftist points with the feminist/communists.

i doubt there is any consideration to casualties or combat effectiveness.

or what is going to happen when a bunch of females are captured by al-quaida or tango.

the important thing to the obamma administration is it makes the left happy TODAY.

the girls in combat are just pawns to him as are the rest of the armed forces, till he needs them for something.

and while attention is diverted he can go ape on the budget and gun control.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top